Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Hamid (soldier)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAbdul Hamid (soldier) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2018Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2023, and September 10, 2023.

The page has the wrong title and URL

[edit]

This page is wrongly titled. The rank of the person is Company Quarter Master Havaldar and not Company Havildar Major as it currently shows. Somebody move it to the Company_Quarter_Master_Havildar_Abdul_Hamid URL.

Page has been moved

[edit]

In the light of the above suggestion

IAF Guru 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research concerns

[edit]
… literally gifted by the then US administration to the military dictatorship of General Khan in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to help it destablise the democratically elected government of pluralistic India. After the debacle of much more superiorly and lethally armed Pakistan in the 1965 war with India because of the courageous actions of the likes of Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid, the M48 was largely forced into extinction from military use around the world and replaced by the M60. Past and present US patronage of the Islamic state of Pakistan has always been rewarded by the regular supply of Pakistan trained terrorists to the civilised world.

Is this article about a genuine hero or about the alleged perfidy and evil of Islam, Pakistan and the United States? --A. B. (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


its very neutral can't u see pakistanis is helping taliban ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.63.125 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage of Abdul Hamid

[edit]

"Abdul Hamid was born in Dhamupur village of Ghazipur district, Uttar Pradesh on 1 June 1933, the son of Mohammad Usman"

The Mohammad Usman mentioned here, is possibly a tailor and not the one currently linked up. Brigadier Moh. Usman in his wiki page has a mention stating he was a bachelor.

Please mark these as unverified facts These need to be confirmed as also the same facts have been mentioned on the page [Abbas Ansari] prashantmaxsteel (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Brigadier Mohammad Usman was from a landlord family of Bibipur village in Mau district of Uttar Pradesh. While Abdul Hamid was from Dhamupur village of Ghazipur district. There was no relation betwen them. Obviously it is some miscreant who has vandalized the page. Any I am going to remove this content.--Yavarai (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai[reply]

"Military awards" section

[edit]

@Myopia123: It seems that you've added the "Military awards" section again, which I removed during one of my previous edits. I removed it because there isn't any citation for the section, if you have any, please add, else kindly remove it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: It is on the official Indian Army Website. Go to the link at the end and click on Abdul Hamid. It is in the description. I find your habit of removing/editing without explanations to be extremely annoying. (https://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmPhotoGalleryWithMenuWithTitle.aspx?MnId=1S6le4HkwTRVcZGUUfaC8g==&ParentID=brIZvMw9BqdJoneKeqCGvQ==&flag=qt5Y7qVBAv1zW7M/WwAC2Q==)Myopia123 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Myopia123: The reference seems, please add it to the section as a citation. As I develop articles for GA assessment, I check everything, and remove the content which is unreferenced or doesn't have any encyclopedic value. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: And that prevents you from adding edit summaries why exactly? Please do so in the future so that I don't have to attempt to figure out what you were thinking. Myopia123 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Myopia123: Sure, thank you. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Abdul Hamid (soldier)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) No citation links to reference Rawat; is this deliberate? Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Some sources are a little jingoistic, but IMO acceptably reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) This seems light on images. Is there not something generic which could be added? Eg a picture of a Patton tank? A map showing the location of the action would also be helpful. Is it possible to include an image of the commemorative stamp? Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass A solid and exhaustive study of a fascinating incident. Good work and deserving of Good Article status.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Some prose points:

  • "As a prelude to Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan attempted..." could leave readers a little puzzled. How about "As a prelude to Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan's strategy to infiltrate Jammu and Kashmir, and start a rebellion against Indian rule, Pakistani forces attempted..."?
  • "From 5 to 10 August 1965, Indian troops uncovered a mass infiltration. From captured documents and prisoners, Pakistan's plans to capture Kashmir with a guerrilla attack were brought to light..." Two consecutive sentences start with "From". Possibly change the second to "Captured documents and prisoners revealed Pakistan's plans to capture Kashmir with a guerrilla attack..."?
  • "east of Ichogil Canal". Should be "the Ichogil Canal".
  • "and dug 3-foot (0.91 m) trenches by dawn." Should be "and had dug".
  • "Hamid led the RCLR detachment of his battalion". At some point you need to explain to the readers just what a RCLR is. Also, on first mention it should be named in full.
  • "and Pakistani soldiers in the two following tanks fled"; "the Pakistani soldiers in the following tanks again fled". The word "in" is used. Does this mean that the Pakistani crews abandoned their tanks?
  • "By the end of the day, an engineering company laid anti-personnel..." Should be "had laid".
  • "They were attacked by Pakistani..." Could we specify "They"? Possibly "The battalion was..."?
  • "The Pakistanis made armoured attacks at 9:30 and 11:30 am and 2:30 pm." Should be "...at 9:30, 11:30 am and 2:30 pm."
  • "The first wave of three tanks, one leading and the other two following at a 200-yard (180 m) distance, arrived on 10 September at about 8:00 am." Change to "On 10 September at about 8:00 am the first wave of three tanks, one leading and the other two following at a 200-yard (180 m) distance, arrived."
  • "retired Indian Army general Ian Cardozo said that the award citation". I think that "retired Indian Army general Ian Cardozo has written that the award citation" would be more accurate.

Otherwise the prose is looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
  • This seems light on images. Is there not something generic which could be added? Eg a picture of a Patton tank? A map showing the location of the action would also be helpful. Is it possible to include an image of the commemorative stamp?
  • No citation links to reference Rawat; is this deliberate? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Hi, thanks for the review. I've addressed your comments above, please have a look at the article. Please elaborate your last point. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is just enough to satisfy the image criterion. In case you do want to add a Patton tank there is a nice picture here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Destroyed_Patton_Tank_(1965_Indo-Pak_War).jpg, or pictures here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pakistani+tank&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=dgrtkjxr92b3czr7ypomy0c3i .
Your 5th "reference", which is The Brave: Param Vir Chakra Stories, by Rawat, does not have any citations in the articles referring to it. So you need to either put in a new cite linking to it, or move it to the "further reading" section. Hopefully that is clearer. If not, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I didn't not use the first image because it doesn't seem to be original (125 KB file), no source information. Fixed the reference issue. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The images now look very classy. However, your second map, Jammu and Kashmir, isn't set up correctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I preferred the 'multi-choice' map you had before. You may want to consider reinstating it, either with the Jammu and Kashmir map fixed, or simply deleted. Be that as it may, it is certainly now up to B class. Good job. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Hamid_(soldier)&oldid=1205372685"